Criticism of Islam is a protected belief

[theilltemperedmaggotintheheartofthelaw]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15272771/Criticism-Islam-ruled-legally-protected-belief-man-banned-fined-thousands-pounds-social-media-posts.html

I wasn't able to find the judgment. There'll be a hearing in February but it's not clear to me whether claimant's beliefs have already been tested for Grainger compliance. Either way, the tribunal will (also) have to address objectionable manifestation (Bananarama doctrine).

I've raised it here because of the parallels with Forstater. It's a constant refrain of TRAs that permitting Forstater belief is tantamount to attacking GR as a protected characteristic. They do not understand secularism (or the SC ruling).

Of course the situation is not the same insofar as Islam has not been written into our law and Muslims don't expect the rest of us to follow its rules.

Article 9, anyone?

Hasn't this always been the case? ie that criticism of a religion is permitted, but the expression of it can be unacceptable eg

criticism of Judaism (or any religion) can be a protected "philosophical belief" under the Equality Act 2010, provided it meets specific legal criteria and does not cross the line into unlawful discrimination, harassment, or hate speech.

The key distinction is between holding a belief, which is an absolute right, and how that belief is manifested (expressed), which can be subject to limitations to protect the rights of others

Interesting news.

I wonder how that will sit with the governments’ apparent desire to outlaw ‘Islamophobia’ with a definition that precludes anyone ‘targeting expressions of Muslimness’?

I can think of a few apparent ‘expressions of Muslimness’ that need targeting.

From the website:

1. There is no single agreed definition of Islamophobia, albeit various civic, social, legal and political sources have attempted to define it. One definition is the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslim’s definition (APPG). The APPG defines Islamophobia as:

“… rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

https://labour.org.uk/resources/labours-islamophobia-policy/

I wonder if the Judge has worked out that he'll be blundering all over Labour's plans. He'll need to work hard to get the nice Grainger compliant unobjectionable manifestation on one side of the line and all the nasty islamophobia on the other.

I think Labour's definition is dead in the water now, quite rightly. You can only be bigoted against individuals not ideas.

Definitions of 'phobia' against specific religions can't fly - they all think theirs is the only right way and judge the others' practices heretical. Considering heresy is a Very Bad Sin to the faithful, they'd all be guilty of 'phobia' .

I think the winner of that case might have had a knock at the door if he'd been in Scotland: Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021

How can it be possible to stop someone having a belief? Who would police our thoughts and beliefs? Providing people do not descriminate or behave in ways that are unlawful does it really matter?

"Who would police our thoughts and beliefs?"

Never forget, Posie had a policeman at her door saying he wanted to check her thinking

You should be okay if you just hold a belief and never express it to anyone, even within your own home.

I think that's the issue.

We can all have beliefs but dont have the right to impose them on anyone.

We all have the right to criticise a belief system, but dont have the right to then behave in a discriminatory or violent way towards someone because they have beliefs you dont share.

However, as with everything the moment politicians get hold of this sort of nuance any hope of a reasoned and balance behaviour goes out of the window.

Although for most of us the most obvious example are TRAs, many of whom aren't trans but have weaponised the issue so as to attack women and women's sex based rights.

Would be interesting to know where the courts would draw the line between reasonable criticism and hatred. But as we know even if a TRA calls out from a platform for violence against women, a male judge will just say not to take it seriously.

It’s reassuring and I’m glad it’s been tested in court to draw for clarity’s sake, but a bit annoyed that we have people having to go to the courts for what should be common sense. The people in these cases basically have to focus way too much of their own time, energy and money on confirming the obvious,

I always thought it was straightforward, you can be mean about any idea but if it results in you harassing an individual or group of people or inciting violence then you have crossed the line.

I wonder how the law would treat my wife, who was brought up as a Muslim in Iran and is very critical of the religion (as I am of Catholicism) and the effect it had on her in 1979 and her subsequent departure from the country of her birth, for obvious reasons.

Phobia is an odd way to describe criticism against a religion anyway.

I think the law would treat you both just fine unless you started campaigns of violence & intimidation against priests and imams. We are going through a period of potential mission creep, however.

As @Bringemout says, it's very annoying that people have to go through court cases to get perfectly sound existing laws clarified. That's how our legal system works, though. It does mean that zealots trying to manipulate the law will (eventually, expensively) get knocked down.

I actively dislike every organised religion. I have what I think are good reasons. I'm free to talk about this - as I do!

I am not free to commit actual crimes - harassment, stalking, threats of harm, incitement to violence, etc - against anyone at all, religious or not. If I do that and make it about their religion, I commit a 'hate' crime: the crime's aggravated by their protected characteristic.

It seems utterly pointless to create an extra layer on this for one particular religion. Apart from the fact that we already have this law, it would be unfair to the other religions. And they'd be straight in court to stress the point!

it is not just the belief that is protected - it is also the expression of that belief.

Under European human rights law?

Yes.

So does that also mean criticising Christianity is also a protected belief?

It's only fair right?

What gave you the impression that you couldn’t criticise Christianity? Criticism of Christianity is widespread.

Worldwide the Christians are the most persecuted religious group. Not just the currant massacres of hundreds of thousands of Christians by Islamists in Sudan and Nigeria, but also those in Syria, the genocide of Yazidis (Christians), those in Nagorno Karabakh, in India, China, Indonesia, the targeting of Christians in Pakistan under their notorious blasphemy laws… not to mention laws that discriminate against them in every Islamic country.

Are we eventually going to have to go through the process of legally determining every single opinion as a protected belief? "Pineapple tastes good on pizza is protected belief, Supreme Court finds." " Judge rules 'Conservative Party full of knobheads, Labour not much better' protected belief." And so on.

Nobody should need to go to court for the freedom to criticise any religion.

Nobody should need to go to court for the freedom to criticise any religion.

The state did not directly inhibit his freedom to criticise Islam (which would have been an Article 10 breach, provided the criticism didn't rise to the level of being harassment, victimisation or discrimination against Muslims as people, or some other infraction such as incitement to violence).

It did it indirectly (in the first instance decision) by failing to protect him from discrimination on the grounds of the beliefs he had expressed, which were not relevant to his job (I'm guessing you could sack a vicar for being an atheist).

Sacking him for thinking that pineapple on pizza is an abomination would be unfair dismissal (after two years employment) anyway, because it's termination without a good reason or fair procedure.

provided the criticism didn't rise to the level of being harassment, victimisation or discrimination against Muslims as people

Whilst individuals can harass, they are not covered by duties under the Equality Act unless in the course of their employment or providing services.

Have you never seen Monty Python?

Imagine them ever getting a comedy film off the ground that mocked Islam/Muhammed.

Christianity gets mocked left right and centre, and it’s taken on the chin. It’s so embedded in society, comedy, debate that nobody even questions it.